With Commissioner Roger Goodell setting the bounty appeal hearings for Monday, June 18, questions linger regarding the procedures to be used and, most importantly, whether the NFL will share raw evidence of the bounty system with the players who are challenging their suspensions: Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove.

Per a source with knowledge of the proceedings, the league is required by the CBA to disclose the evidence it plans to rely upon during the appeal hearings three days in advance of the sessions.

That’s not a blanket requirement that the league open its files. Instead, the league must produce only what it plans to use.

Thus, if there is evidence that points to innocence, the league isn’t required to give it to the players and the NFLPA.

Though, in theory, the league could keep its intended evidence simple in light of the fact that Goodell has full authority over the appeals, the final outcome most likely will be subject to attack in court. The more slanted and biased the process seems, the more effective the players arguments for relief will become. Thus, if the league holds back evidence, the suspensions could be more vulnerable to being overturned by a federal judge.

Given that the league plans to conduct all four appeal hearings on the same day, it’s unlikely that the NFL will use a lengthy, complex presentation of evidence. Few if any trials can be completed in one day; the idea that four hearings involving hotly disputed allegations can be conducted on June 18 suggests that the procedures are more perfunctory than meaningful.

The players will have a much better sense of how detailed the process will be next Friday, when the NFL hands over the evidence that will be used.

The week has ended the same way it began  with an arbitrator dismissing a bounty grievance.

First it was Stephen Burbank, who disagreed with the argument that the punishment imposed on four players arising from the Saints bounty system falls within the scope of the labor deals prohibition against salary-cap violations. As a result, Burbank concluded that Commissioner Roger Goodell, not Burbank, had jurisdiction over the discipline and appeal process.

On Friday, arbitrator Shyam Das dismissed a separate bounty grievance that raises two arguments: (1) Goodell has no ability to discipline players for any misconduct occurring before the 2011 labor deal was signed; and (2) the discipline arises from on-field misconduct, which means that the appeals should be resolved by Ted Cottrell or Art Shell.

The ruling was disclosed via Twitter by NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, who may or may not have been spiking a football with one hand as he typed the tweet with the other.

Per multiple sources with knowledge of the proceedings, the ruling from Das is not subject to appeal. (The Burbank ruling can, and will, be appealed.)

Goodell has scheduled hearings on the appeals of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita for June 18.

Anybody else think that Goodell is rigging the appeals process and that Burbank is in the NFL's back pocket?

Burbank= Redskins Cowboys cap violations when there wasn't a cap. Now his Bountygate ruling. It really makes me question Burbanks integrity. Obviously Burbank knows where his bread is buttered.

Oh well, the truth will come out when Vilma takes Goodell to court. Hopefully the NFLPA wises up in the next CBA and knocks king Rodger off his throne. They probably will just go for the $$$$ like always. Instead of doing what's right in the long run for the game.

(1) Goodell has no ability to discipline players for any misconduct occurring before the 2011 labor deal was signed; and (2) the discipline arises from on-field misconduct, which means that the appeals should be resolved by Ted Cottrell or Art Shell.

Click to expand...

Both of those points are just laughable to me. There was a modified CBA still in place before 2011, it's what they used for the 2010 uncapped year. If there wasn't one, then there wouldn't have been a season. They still had code of conduct rules to live by regardless of the CBA's future.

The misconduct was planned and paid for off-field and instigated on-field. To argue it occurred only on the field is disingenuous. In those matters, it always goes to the off-field arbiter.

If that's the best their lawyer can do, then I hope they get banned forever. This is a pathetic defense on the player's part and it is wasting everyone's time and money.